UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EDWIN LEWIS, II,
Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4644

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CR-98-628)
Submitted: April 30, 2002
Decided: June 6, 2002
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL
Christopher J. Moran, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. J.
Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Eric Wm. Ruschky,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

UNITED STATES v. LEWIS

OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Edwin Lewis, II pleaded guilty to one count of corruptly obstructing and impeding the due administration of the internal revenue laws,
pursuant to 26 U.S.C.A. 7212(a) (West Supp. 2001), and was sentenced to thirty months imprisonment and a $7500 fine. On appeal,
Lewis challenges the district courts sentencing findings and asserts
that the Government withheld evidence and that there are errors in the
presentence report. We affirm.
The district courts application of sentencing guidelines is reviewed
for clear error as to factual determinations; legal questions are subject
to de novo review. United States v. Blake, 81 F.3d 498, 503 (4th Cir.
1996). Lewis contends that the wrong sentencing guideline was
selected to determine his sentence. We agree with the district courts
conclusion that a violation of the omnibus section of 26 U.S.C.A.
7212(a) that does not involve the use of force or a weapon is sentenced in accordance with U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
2T1.1 (2000), with reference to the tax table under U.S.S.G.
2T4.1. Accordingly, this claim lacks merit.
Lewis further asserts that the district courts calculation of his tax
loss was erroneous. The district courts factual determination of the
tax loss is reviewed for clear error. Blake, 81 F.3d at 503. The district
courts finding was supported by the testimony of Agent Chardoes of
the Internal Revenue Service, who was involved in the audit of
Lewiss tax returns, and Lewis has failed to demonstrate that the district courts reliance on this testimony was clearly erroneous. Thus,
we reject Lewiss challenge to the computation of his tax loss.
In Lewiss pro se brief, he contends in a conclusory manner that
there may be new evidence that was not revealed by the Government
and that there were errors in the presentence report. These claims are
unsupported by Lewiss pro se brief, counsels brief, or the record.
Thus, we find these issues meritless.
In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we
have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues

UNITED STATES v. LEWIS

for appeal. We therefore affirm Lewiss conviction and sentence. This

court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
such petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court
for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsels motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with
oral argument because, despite the fact that the facts and legal contentions are inadequately presented in the materials before the court,
argument will not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED